COMMUNITY FOREST RIGHTS: STATUS ISSUES &STATUS, ISSUES, &

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

Presentation by Ashish Kothari (with inputs by Tushar Dash, Shiba Desor, Trupti

Parekh, Subodh Kulkarni, Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, Dilip Gode, Purnima)

N ti l W k h CFRNational Workshop on CFRsMarch 2013

STATUS OF CFR IN THE STATES AS ON 31st December, 2012 (MOTA)

St t N f N f it E t t fState No of community claims

No of community titles issued

Extent of forest land in acres

A dh P d h 6 714 2 106Andhra Pradesh 6,714 2,106Assam 5,193 860Chhattisgarh 4,736 775 Gujarat 8,723 1,608Karnataka 2,917 53Kerala 1395 4Kerala 1395 4Madhya Pradesh

13,125 Not available

Maharashtra 5 041 1033 3 77 776 25Maharashtra 5,041 1033 3,77,776.25Odisha 3,304 879 55,251.65Rajasthan 346 53 4,19.53T i 2 6 9Tripura 277 55 56.79Uttar Pradesh 1,135 814West Bengal 7,824 108 50.29

ISSUES WITH THE MoTA MONTHLY REPORTSMONTHLY REPORTS

• Dependent on poor/incorrect reporting by states; now improving under MoTA-UNDP project

• Most of the reported community forest rights are development facilities; no disaggregation between Sec 3(1) and Sec 3(2); now sought by MoTASec 3(1) and Sec 3(2); now sought by MoTA

• Area covered by CFR claims is not available for many statesmany states

Some stories of success…•Mostly where civil society organisations have facilitated

•Some places, pro-active help by revenue/forest officials

•Helpful government circulars/orders at district (Gadchiroli Mah) state (Odisha MP MoTA on CFRs)(Gadchiroli, Mah), state (Odisha, MP, MoTA on CFRs) and national level (2012)

•Experience exchange through national CFR Learning/Advocacy Network (also some state networks)Learning/Advocacy Network (also some state networks)

Maharashtra (Dec 2012)(Dec 2012)

CFR claims: 4955CFR claims: 4955Accepted: 2745Titled: 1571Titled: 1571Area: 705869 acresHighest in India, but mostly in 2 districts, g , y ,and mostly conditional

ODISHA Over 10,000 self-initiated community , yforests

Claims: 5391, over ~ 2,50,035.93 acresApproved: 2908, over ~ 2,25,332.84 acresTitled: >972, over 57,794.47 acres

Recently issued titles inRecently issued titles in Kandhamal reflect customary/traditional boundaries; many other titles have illegal conditions

Other states…Several thousand accepted in Andhra, over ~1 lakh acres (but mostly conditional, restricted to JFM boundaries, or titled to VSS)

Almost 2000 CFR titles in Gujarat, including Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary (area 3,00,000 acres?)

381 claims over 126 998381 claims over 126,998 acres accepted, Baiga chak, Madhya P d h(b t diti lPradesh(but conditional & titled to VSS)

JHARKHANDJHARKHAND

CFR ST OTFD• CFR claims mostly from

West Singhbhum GoddaClaims and Titles

West Singhbhum, Godda, Khunti

• Many of the CFR titles areTitlesClaims filed at

3571 147• Many of the CFR titles are

for development facilities

• In West Singhbhum CFRGram SabhaNumber 542 10

• In West Singhbhum, CFR titles issued to each individual household

Number of titles given

542 10• State govt has informed

that since CNTA/SPTA laws have alreadylaws have already recorded rights, progress on FRA/CFR is slow

Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary & (illegal) Tiger Reserve Karnataka& (illegal) Tiger Reserve, Karnataka

25 CFR titles to Soliga, over ~25,000 ha (>half of sanctuary); community-based wildlife/tiger conservation plan process

initiated

MOSTLY, THOUGH, CFR IMPLEMENTATION HAS

BEEN EXTREMELY WEAK;BEEN EXTREMELY WEAK;

IN MANY STATES, NOT MOVED AT ALLMOVED AT ALL

Total potential area: >75 m. acresAccepted/titled: <1 m acresAccepted/titled: <1 m.acres

PROBLEMS WITH CFR PROCESS(with exceptions)(with exceptions)

• Inadequate awareness and training• Poor facilitation by govt depts (e.g. in providing

evidences) incl. Tribal/Social Welfare Depts• Use of different formats for CFR claims• Use of different formats for CFR claims• Undue influence of or reliance on Forest Department• Lack of clarity in verification and mapping process• Lack of clarity in verification and mapping process• Artificial restrictions on extent of claims (e.g. JFM), or

titles to inappropriate institutions (VSS/Panchayat)titles to inappropriate institutions (VSS/Panchayat)• Titles with improper or illegal conditions (e.g. IFA)

RIGHTS TO PROTECT, CONSERVE, MANAGE COMMUNITY FORESTMANAGE COMMUNITY FOREST

RESOURCES

Mi i S ti 3(1)i i M TA CFR f t ( dd d i 2012 R l )•Missing Section 3(1)i in MoTA CFR format (added in 2012 Rules)•Management/protection rights not recognized in many CFR titles

RIGHTS OF HABITAT FOR PTGs & PRE-AGRICULTURE COMMUNITIESAGRICULTURE COMMUNITIES

No clarity on ‘habitat’ rights (e gNo clarity on habitat rights (e.g. do they include non-forest lands?);

National Workshop (2010) recommendations ignored

Niyamgiri-Sacred hill ofGuda Raija-Habitat rights of Chuktia-Bhunjia, Odisha &Niyamgiri Sacred hill of

Dongrias, OdishaChuktia Bhunjia, Odisha &

Chhattisgarh

2012 amended

No move in most states re. PTG habitat rights

2012 amended rules:PVTG claims to be filed before gram sabhas recogni ing

Maria in Bhamragarh & Kolam in Yavatmal have

made habitat claims, Mah.

g sabhas, recognizing floating nature of their gram sabhas

TRADITIONAL RESOURCE ACCESS OF NOMADIC COMMUNITIES

(Mankirdias, Gujjars, Maldharis, Raikas, Dhangars …)

•No nomadic/seasonal pastoral community has yet got CFR rights

•No mechanism to assist their claims in multiple gram sabhasin multiple gram sabhas

FRA d d lFRA amended rules: DLC to facilitate claim filing by pastoralists,

transhumants andtranshumants and nomadic communities

RIGHTS ON SHIFTING CULTIVATION LANDSCULTIVATION LANDS

mostly being treated as IFRs (e.g. Tripura); rest of jh l d th j tifi bl b t t d b f tjhum lands can then unjustifiably be treated by forest

dept as ‘encroachment’

RIGHTS OF OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (OTFD)FOREST DWELLERS (OTFD)

So far a few accepted only in Gadchiroli distSo far, a few accepted only in Gadchiroli dist, Maharashtra, some in Jharkhand; everywhere else, very few claims, none accepted, y , p

Some states (AP, Guj), process not started

Problems of >interpretation of OTFD eligibility

tti id>getting evidence>non-acceptance of claims by gram sabhas

FOREST VILLAGESFOREST VILLAGES

Conversion to revenue villages and recognition of their CFRs unclear: no central guidance till recently (broad procedure now in Amended Rules)

Unsurveyed/unrecorded (so-called ‘unauthorised’) settlements: poor identification, no claims process

RIGHTS IN PROTECTED AREASAREAS

• CFR recognised in v. few protected areasg p• CWH Guidelines not finalised; no

guidelines on co-existenceguidelines on co existence • FRA/WLPA 2006 violated in recent buffer

notificationsnotifications

ILLEGAL RELOCATION: WITHOUT FRA IMPLEMENTATION, NOT OFFERING

OPTION OF STAYING ON WITH RIGHTS (e.g. Simlipal, Achanakmar, Tadoba, Sariska, Melghat Tiger

Reserves)Reserves)CTH relocation protocol doesn’t define ‘inviolate’, ignores crucial FRA issues

Ambadiha relocation siterelocation site (from Simlipal TR)

Family moving from Tadoba TR, 2012

Notification of buffer areas in tiger reserves (Ajay Dubey Case)

-Filed PIL in 2011 seeking implementation of Tiger Conservation PlanCase goes to Supreme Court temporary tourism ban is put-Case goes to Supreme Court, temporary tourism ban is put

on India’s 41 Tiger reserve areas-Committee on Tourism is constituted to frame new guidelines on tourism-Despite objections from committee members, new guidelines finalized which violate provisions in FRA, and PESA, p , ,threatening rights and livelihoods of forest communities with illegal relocationSupreme Court makes interim decision to lift tourism ban-Supreme Court makes interim decision to lift tourism ban,

however objections to guidelines are yet to be addressed.The tiger reserve area has expanded to 41 tiger reserves (TR), covering an area g g ( ) g

of around 63874.68 sq.km. with 35123.95 sq.km. of core/CTH and 28750.73 sq.km. of buffer in 17 tiger States. This amounts to 2% of the country’s

geographical area

FRA violation in diversion of forest land for mining damsforest land for mining, dams,

industries, etcVedanta-Niyamgiri

• MoEF circular (30.7.09) requires state govts to comply with

POSCO

( ) q g p yFRA & seek gram sabha consent for diversion of forest land

• But mostly violated by states and MoEF; 200,000 ha forest diverted without FRA processdiverted without FRA process

• Exemption for linear projects (roads, railway/ transmission lines); over-riding powers with Cabinet Committee on InvestmentsInvestments

After FRA, key to decision making on

Other violations of CFRs…decision making on forests is with gram

sabha, then why is all this happening?

Forest dept operations (plantations, coupe felling, jatropha) on Forest dept operations (plantations, coupe felling, jatropha) on community land without consultation / consentcommunity land, without consultation / consent

Continued operation by industries (e.g. paper mills) on CFR-C

resist coupe felling in Baiga Chak (MP)

claimed lands … CFRs used to stop paper mill lease in Vidarbha (Mah) or protest it in Narmada/Dangs (Gujarat), resist coupe felling in Baiga Chak (MP)

POST-TITLE GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT& MANAGEMENT

Lack of clarity regarding: FRA amended rules: y g g• Protection/management rights of

CFR (what specific powers with

Gram Sabha to integrate conservation plan with working plan of FD with

modifications asGS?)

• Role of forest department (still

modifications as considered necessary by

GS Committee

one of regulation and enforcement?)M t f CFR ki

confusion:How are differences

between FD and Gram Sabha to be resolved?• Management of CFR vs working

plan/management plans of the FD (what is the relationship?)

Sabha to be resolved? ‘Modifications’ are to be

made in GS plan, or Working Plan?

FD (what is the relationship?)

POST-TITLE GOVERNANCE & MANAGEMENT& MANAGEMENT

Lack of clarity regarding:Lack of clarity regarding:

C f i h

FRA amended rules:

• Convergence of various schemes (how to ensure?)Growing experience of

Convergence to be ensured

extending all• Growing experience of convergence on ground, due to pro-active Collectors / civil society

extending all relevant schemes of all departments t i ht h ldpro active Collectors / civil society to rights-holders

CONFLICTING LAWS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMSPOLICIES AND PROGRAMS

• Imposition of JFM (e.g. Odisha, Maharashtra JFM resolutions)• Climate change programmes (Green India Mission / REDD /

Biofuels): no clear directions on centrality of CFRs Land Acquisition Act / Forest Conservation Act: ti d• Land Acquisition Act / Forest Conservation Act: continued take-over of lands without FRA completion & gram sabha consent

• Mines & Minerals Act: no central role of gram sabhasg• Wild Life (Protection) Act: protected areas ignore CFR rights; PA

notification does not require GS consultation/consent • Indian Forest Act: continues to operate in CFRs?• State panchayat/NTFP/PESA laws, still operating

St t PESA l ( R j th ) t di t FRA• State PESA rules (e.g. Rajasthan) contradict FRA

Rights without benefits? Transit permit powers still with FD till recently (new Rules giveFD till recently (new Rules give them to gram sabha)

MFP nationalisation (of some or many species) continues in

ll t t hi dall states; ownership under PESA/FRA of all MFP, not transferred (tendu rights to gram transferred (tendu rights to gram sabhas in Vidarbha, Maharashtra)

Issue of sustainability of harvest/use of several species

Key recommendationsKey recommendations

Combining:

•Recommendations of National Workshops on CFRs, 2011, 2012, 2013

•Report of MoEF/MoTA Jt. Committee on FRA, 2010

•Recommendations of NAC, 2010

•Inputs from communities / movements / NGOs

RecommendationsOverall implementationOverall implementation

National FRA Council (on lines of NREGS Council), withNational FRA Council (on lines of NREGS Council), with independent role of monitoring/guiding implementation, facilitating social audits, grievance redressal

For immediate action: process of reviewing & monitoring state action plans with civil society involvement (and urgentaction plans, with civil society involvement (and urgent correction where action plans violate/undermine FRA)

Similar independent monitoring, grievance redressal, & social audit processes at state and district/taluka level, linked to (but not under) SLMC DLC SDLC: composition must includenot under) SLMC, DLC, SDLC: composition must include gram sabha committee representatives, independent civil society with experience on forest rights issues

RecommendationsOverall implementation

SLMC DLC SDLC t t bli di lSLMC, DLC, SDLC reports: suo moto public disclosure

Any committees set up under FRA (e g CWH) must beAny committees set up under FRA (e.g. CWH) must be disclosed to gram sabhas in affected areas, and put into public domain

When is process ‘complete’? Who will certify? Needs clarification and guidance cannot be left to state decision; noclarification and guidance, cannot be left to state decision; no artificial deadlines for ‘completion’ of process

Clarification on municipal areas needed (withdrawing earlier MoTA letter stating FRA not applicable)

RecommendationsImplementation: pre-claims/claims/recognition phase

• CFR awareness and training: produce simple material for mass distribution, sub-divisional level training programmes esp. on new R l i i b d t f t i iRules, ongoing programmes; increase budgets for training; consolidated database of state/district circulars

• Mass circulation of claim forms for Section 3(1)i (with clarification that if already filed, need not be filed again)

• Pro-active facilitation of claims, evidence gathering, mapping, inter village coordination: set up teams of officials and civil societyinter-village coordination: set up teams of officials and civil society to assist villages; instructions to district collectors to prepare files for each village

RecommendationsImplementation: pre-claims/claims/recognition phase

•Special mechanism for nomadic communities (Joint meeting of p ( gFRCs across migratory path, to receive claims? Habitat rights across migratory path? DLC responsibility in 2012 Rules)Cl id li PTG h bit t i ht h t th h t•Clear guidelines on PTG habitat rights: what they mean, how to

claim (see recommendations of national workshop on PTGs, 2010; DLC responsibility in 2012 Rules; MoTA should ask for reporting on DLC actions on this; processes to help map trad. territories or recognise maps already existing)•Guidance that jhum/shifting cultivation rights should be CFRs &•Guidance that jhum/shifting cultivation rights should be CFRs & not IFRs

•Continued violations by officials, e.g. artificial restrictions on extent of claims (e.g. JFM/VP boundaries), rejection by SDLCs: threaten prosecution of some cases to set an example

RecommendationsImplementation: titles post title managementImplementation: titles, post-title management

•No conditions in titles, other than relevant to FRA; titles to gram sabha, not VSS/subsection of village; titles should mention area: specific letters to states that are repeatedly defaulting• MFP/NTFP denationalisation with minimum support price and/or working capital support: - repeal contradictory state laws or guidelines (with interimrepeal contradictory state laws or guidelines (with interim arrangement for continued state support where gram sabha empowerment in process)

stop state monopol control and ro alties (as in amended r les)- stop state monopoly control and royalties (as in amended rules)- learn lessons from experiences of existing co-ops on

sustainability, equity, governance-warn officials/agencies openly defying Act- urgently budget for minimum support prices

RecommendationsImplementation: titles, post-title management

Instr ctions that Working Plans and Management Plans sho ld•Instructions that Working Plans and Management Plans should incorporate and be modified on basis of gram sabha plans, and get gram sabha consent (new Rules language not fully clear)• Clarification to be issued to states that gram sabha planning process is independent: cannot be under FD, and not done through JFM scheme (several state action plans propose this)•Forest Dept/other depts to give all records to gram sabhas who have got title, with continuing responsibility to support where required/requested by gram sabharequired/requested by gram sabha•Transfer of budgets currently with FD (incl. CAMPA) for forest management to gram sabhas; not to JFM committeesG bh FR itt d t b NREGS th•Gram sabha FR committees empowered to be NREGS or other

scheme implementors

RecommendationsProtected areas / Critical Wildlife & Tiger Habitats

•Critical Wildlife/Tiger Habitats: knowledge-based, democratic processes, respecting rights, stressing co-existence, minimising relocation: guidelines should be urgently finalised based on civil society inputs given last year

•Tiger reserve buffer notifications: widespread violation of FRA, MoTA should independently review and intervene in SC

•Stop relocation till FRA rights recognition complete; option of staying on with full rights has to be clearly communicated/ensured; relocation package should have compensation for community rights that are given up; MoTA to set up investigation team to look at FRA violations in past/ongoing relocations and recommend/take action

•Monitor and report FRA implementation in PAs (incl. Tiger Reserves); also monitor conservation outcomes

RecommendationsGovernance reforms (where CFR vested, at village/cluster level)

•Village level Gram Sabha committees empowered similar to FD, with penal powers and building of skills for various roles onwith penal powers and building of skills for various roles on management/protection/sustainable use: need clear guidelines on this? Schemes for building capacity (financial, technical, managerial, research/monitoring) help in ensuring women’s central involvement)research/monitoring), help in ensuring women s central involvement)•FD transformed into service agency (technical guidance, capacity-building, monitoring, support): urgent deliberations by MoTA & MoEF t t k d i i f h (i l di h ito take decision on process of change (including change in training/IFS curriculum)•Village-level and village-cluster level (federations at g g (landscape/cultural levels) planning by/with Gram Sabhas: resource support by MoTA/state depts

RecommendationsExternal use of CFRs

•Denial/inaction on claims in areas targeted for mining etc.•Gram sabha consent for any external use of forest land

-Plantations-Coupe felling Non forest se-Non-forest use

Continued violation of FRA MoEF 2009 circular and MoTAContinued violation of FRA, MoEF 2009 circular, and MoTA 2012 circulars/letter: MoTA should institute independent investigation into forest diversion to check compliance, and t k ti i t i l ti d f li f l tt ttake action against violations and for compliance of letter to MoEF re. FAC, video-recording, etc.

RecommendationsGovernance reforms (at landscape/state levels)

•Taluka/District level agencies (Govt representatives, GS committees, NGOs, political representatives, other experts)…replacing FDAFDAs•Joint management committees (not like JFM, but genuine power-sharing) for PA-buffer landscapes/Biospherepower sharing) for PA buffer landscapes/Biosphere Reserves/ other conservation landscapes•State level council (FD, GS/federations, NGOs, other experts)

All these with functions/powers to:– Facilitate planning at landscape/larger levels

Monitor forest/wildlife conservation and use act on violations– Monitor forest/wildlife conservation and use, act on violations – Ensure convergence of schemes/programmes/departments towards conservation and livelihood security

RecommendationsGovernance reforms (at national level) •Harmonisation of various Acts with FRA

IFA WLPA FCA Bi di A t-IFA, WLPA, FCA, Biodiv. Act-state laws/rules/circulars on MFP/PESA/JFM / revenue lands)-harmonise gram sabha definition in all laws (including panchayat laws)

•Immediate action on state rules formulated in violation of FRA e g•Immediate action on state rules formulated in violation of FRA, e.g. PESA rules, Village Forest rules •Review of National Forest Policy in view of FRA and PESA, with

t f i ht d it b d ( l ithgreater focus on rights and community-based governance (along with conservation)

For legal/policy reforms, MoTA/MoEF should set up committee to review and recommend specific changes / additions to laws and policies

URGENT request…

MoTA should hold consultations with civil society, regionally and national, along with y g y gother ministries (MoEF, MoRD, MoPR) and state govt agencies g g

Next steps/strategiesCritique of state action plans: state partners to give inputs based on Madhu’s note, CFRLA to consolidate state-wise and at national level

Detailing of recommendations on new institutions we are suggesting (national/state/district/taluka monitoring etc)

Pressure on MoEF re. FRA implementation and gram sabha consent for forest diversion (including on linear projects decision HPfor forest diversion (including on linear projects decision, HP exemption): public hearing at some sites, political lobbying through MPs/MLAs, national people’s tribunal (Nov?), briefing note on FCA-FRA (KV) case studies RTI applications (CSD)FRA (KV), case studies, RTI applications (CSD)

FRA implementation re. forest Working Plans (esp. commercial orientation to be changed): take one or two cases like Baiga chak, do public hearing, take up collectively; input to reformulation of WP code

Next steps/strategiesSelf-assessment of civil society processes rel. to gram sabha empowerment p

State consultations: •Mah. nomadic communities: ANTHRA•Mah. tendu: VNCS/VLFN th Chh tti h CFR O f I di•North Chhattisgarh CFR: Oxfam India

National consultationsNational consultations •PTGs / habitat rights (later in 2013): Vasundhara and others•Post-title governance & management (incl. NTFP): ATREE &Post title governance & management (incl. NTFP): ATREE & others•FRA and PAs: Kalpavriksh & others

ContactsCFR Learning and Advocacy Network

http://www.fra.org.in/new/ p // a o g / e /

Kalpavriksh:Kalpavriksh:neema.pb@gmail.com

d hib @ ildesor.shiba@gmail.com

Vasundharatushardash01@gmail comtushardash01@gmail.com,

tushar@vasundharaorissa.org